Dunk in pregame

[Rich]

We may simply not care.

As for case plays not in the current case book, I'm not one to care much about those either. If they were important, they'd be in the book or written into the rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Just because a Casebook Play is not in the current Casebook does not invalidate it. Far too many officials take the attitude that if it isn't in the current Casebook is does not exist or is no longer valid which is 100% incorrect.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Some caseplays disappear with no explanation (which is probably what Rich is talking about). Were they removed because they were no longer valid, or were they removed because of space considerations? "Ay there's the rub" (Hamlet', Act 3 Scene 3, Billy Shakespeare).

If a casebook play is removed due to a rule change, or a new interpretation, then, of course, it's no longer valid.

If a casebook play is removed due to space considerations, then it's still valid.

Figuring out why the caseplay was removed, often with no explanation from the NFHS, is the hard part. "Ay there's the rub"

[Rich]

Nope. Can't show it to a coach or assigner, it doesn't exist. There is no limit on the size of a digital case book, and they still limit it.

Expecting officials to know to look up a 1971-1972 case play is beyond the pale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

Expecting officials to know to look up a 1971-1972 case play is beyond the pale.

Bingo. Same problem with Points of Emphasis that don't make it into the rulebook, or casebook (recent example of swinging elbow contact above the shoulders). How is a rookie official (bad example, NFHS doubled down on the swinging elbow contact above the shoulders Point of Emphasis 2017-18) supposed to know about these interpretations?

However just because a caseplay interpretation isn't in the current casebook, and disappeared with no explanation, doesn't mean it didn't exist, or is no longer valid.

Sometimes the NFHS just screws up their annual edits. The captains lineup after numerous substitutions disappeared for a few years until some of us pointed it out to the NFHS. They didn't want to remove it from the rulebook, they just screwed up.

Same problem with the NFHS annual interpretations. How is a rookie official supposed to know about an annual interpretation that was published three years ago? If the rule hasn't changed, does that make it less valid?

Originally Posted by Rich

Can't show it to a coach or assigner, it doesn't exist.

Maybe not in the rulebook in your bag, but it does exist (I knew that you were speaking figuratively), maybe in your library, maybe online, maybe in the NFHS library, maybe in Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.'s attic library. Sure, not all of those are easily accessible, but officiating isn't easy.

If you know (again, if you know, because if you don't, this doesn't apply) about an interpretation that was dropped with no explanation, possibly due to space considerations, or an error, and you can still find it after much research, then it's probably still valid.

We don't know what we don't know. At least we can't be faulted for that.

Luckily for us, Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. is very old, remembers just about everything, like an elephent, and knows practically everything there is to know.

[SC Official]

Heck, just this year the FED doubled down on a ridiculous interpretation of the backcourt rule that they first put out in 07-08. Putting it out twice doesn't make it any more correct by rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Heck, just this year the FED doubled down on a ridiculous interpretation of the backcourt rule that they first put out in 07-08. Putting it out twice doesn't make it any more correct by rule.

Third time's the charm.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

We may simply not care.

As for case plays not in the current case book, I'm not one to care much about those either. If they were important, they'd be in the book or written into the rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Pretty much. Unless my state takes up the cause to advocate such an interpretation, I will just act like it was never there. Too many things are going on and I have to worry about something I can only find in some old book or interpretation most people might not even see.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Heck, just this year the FED doubled down on a ridiculous interpretation of the backcourt rule that they first put out in 07-08. Putting it out twice doesn't make it any more correct by rule.

At least it is in their current and updated literature. And that situation is so rare that I doubt I would even need to call it the way they suggest it should be called.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

We may simply not care.

As for case plays not in the current case book, I'm not one to care much about those either. If they were important, they'd be in the book or written into the rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

While they may not be important, that doesn't make them wrong and it certainly doesn't make the opposite true. If the opposite were true, don't you think there would have been a case somewhere along the lines to express the change in the ruling?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While they may not be important, that doesn't make them wrong and it certainly doesn't make the opposite true. If the opposite were true, don't you think there would have been a case somewhere along the lines to express the change in the ruling?

It has nothing to do with being wrong. It has to do with the information you can verify. If you have a standard and you do not bother to put on any current literature we have or you cannot put in in a place that anyone can easily review, then you are undermining that position. If I have to go back in a 5-year-old rulebook that I might not even have in my possession anymore, then we have a problem. I just moved recently and I had some old rulebooks I have not seen in years. I did not go back in them to verify old interpretations that might still be there. If they complain that officials are not applying rules and interpretations, then you cannot take away known interpretations that you still want to hold onto and not put them in your current literature. Not everyone reads this site.

Peace

[so cal lurker]

In the legal world, we often talk about controlling authority and persuasive authority. A court is bound by controlling authority (e.g., a US Supreme Court ruling on an issue of federal law). A court will carefully consider persuasive authority (e.g., a California Court will consider the logic behind a New York court ruling, but is not obligated to follow it).

It seems to me that no-longer-published cases are a form of persuasive authority: as we don't know why they left he book or what may have changed in the interim, they should not be slavishly followed; but since they were controlling at one point, they should be carefully considered before reaching a contrary conclusion.

YMMV.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... you do not bother to put on any current literature we have ... go back in a 5-year-old rulebook that I might not even have in my possession anymore ...

The "swinging elbows/excessive/nonexcessive/contact above the shoulders/intentional/flagrant/foul" Point of Emphasis from 2012-13 disappeared into the Bermuda Triangle for 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. Did veteran officials who were around 2012-13 not follow that interpretation in the intervening years before said Point of Emphasis was resurrected in 2017-18, despite the fact that the interpretation wasn't in the "current literature" during those intervening years ?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... then we have a problem.

Agree here: How does the NFHS expect rookie officials to make the correct interpretation regarding that situation during those intervening years.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It has nothing to do with being wrong. It has to do with the information you can verify.

Peace

If you're only going to call what has a current explicit case play, you're missing a lot.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The "swinging elbows/excessive/nonexcessive/contact above the shoulders/intentional/flagrant/foul" Point of Emphasis from 2012-13 disappeared into the Bermuda Triangle for 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. Did veteran officials who were around 2012-13 not follow that interpretation in the intervening years before said Point of Emphasis was resurrected in 2017-18, despite the fact that the interpretation wasn't in the "current literature" during those intervening years ?



Agree here: How does the NFHS expect rookie officials to make the correct interpretation regarding that situation during those intervening years.

Have them ask me, !

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If you're only going to call what has a current explicit case play, you're missing a lot.

I did not say only call what is in the current casebook. I said that you if you want to have officials know your case plays and up to date interpretations, then you better have it somewhere to support that information. And most of the things we are talking about often are not even common situations. That does not help a newer official that was not around when the interpretation was put into place and had no idea such interpretation or case play existed or a coach that might actually read what is in the book.

Peace